Climate change: What can you do to help halt global warming and when will you do it?

Forums › Off topic › Climate change: What can you do to help halt global warming and when will you do it?

1 | ... | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | 7 | 8 | 9 | 10 | 11 | 12 | 13 | 14 | 15 | 16 | 17 | 18 | 19 | 20 | 21 | 22 | 23 | ... | 49

1257 posts

Uber Geek

# 2258012 14-Jun-2019 10:19

tdgeek:

If I wanted to talk about doors, I dont want a reply about windows. I, thats me, was discussing water vapour that you decided is bad and that anything else is fake.

But I give up as you dont want to discuss the one topic I was posting about.

Good, because you seem to regard what should be a friendly exchange of views as some sort of battle that has to be won!

tdgeek

18738 posts

Uber Geek

Trusted

# 2258013 14-Jun-2019 10:22

Aredwood: I hope that you guys are remembering that fossil fuel vehicles also emit lots of water vapor. In fact, burning any fossil fuels emits water vapor. So I dont think that water vapor from H2 vehicles could be any worse than fossil fuel vehicles. Notice how there is a cloud of what looks like steam coming out of the exhaust on petrol cars on cold mornings. Especially if the car was only recently started? That cloud literally is stream/ water vapor.

I get the feeling that discussing an alternative to EV is a bad thing. So much for a discussion

Lets assume it was an issue for the sake of argument. All that needs to happen is that the water vapour is cooled so that's its expelled as a liquid. Any so called water vapour is not new water vapour, water isnt added or lost to the Earth. It just moves around

kingdragonfly

3554 posts

Uber Geek

# 2258022 14-Jun-2019 10:30

Though there have been many proponents of hydrogen powered vehicles since the 1970's. It always seem to be ten years away.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hydrogen_vehicle#Criticism

From Wikipedia:

"In 2014, Joseph Romm devoted three articles to updating his critiques of hydrogen vehicles. He stated that fuel cell vehicles still have not overcome the following issues:

* high cost of the vehicles,
* high fueling cost,
* and a lack of fuel-delivery infrastructure"

Accidental releasing of hydrogen into the atmosphere would be a bad thing. It assumes hydrogen powered vehicles become popular, and there's a lot of leaks.

Our atmosphere has extremely low densities of hydrogen and helium but lots of heavier molecules including nitrogen, oxygen and carbon dioxide: Lighter particles constantly escape into space.

Back to hydrogen spills, when comparing petrol vehicles to anything else oil spills are rarely considering.

I'm not sure how much oil spills contribute to global warming, but I don't think hydrogen spills could ever compare.

tdgeek

18738 posts

Uber Geek

Trusted

# 2258029 14-Jun-2019 10:39

One person supports this post

H is a solution, but its too costly. Too costly to buy, too costly to create infrastructure. While EV will never make it to aircraft, H would seem to be a real option there. Less infrastructure as you just need to support airports. Its a strong energy product.

kingdragonfly

3554 posts

Uber Geek

# 2258036 14-Jun-2019 10:49

Summary: for small electric planes it's possible, for big electric planes, not with today's technologies.

Are Electric Planes Possible?

gzt

11026 posts

Uber Geek

# 2258237 14-Jun-2019 15:08

2 people support this post

This is a ridiculous discussion. Even if H2O water vapor was a problem it would be trivial to condense and collect it in the vehicle for later use.

frankv

3060 posts

Uber Geek

Lifetime subscriber

# 2258260 14-Jun-2019 15:32

One person supports this post

kingdragonfly:
"In 2014, Joseph Romm devoted three articles to updating his critiques of hydrogen vehicles. He stated that fuel cell vehicles still have not overcome the following issues:

Romm is not an unbiased observer. Google his name in connection to SuperFreakanomics. Which in turn promotes a particular course of action, and has been strongly criticised by other climate scientists.

"You are in a maze of twisty little caves, all alike".

tdgeek

18738 posts

Uber Geek

Trusted

# 2258265 14-Jun-2019 15:40

gzt: This is a ridiculous discussion. Even if H2O water vapor was a problem it would be trivial to condense and collect it in the vehicle for later use.

EXACTLY

frednz

1257 posts

Uber Geek

# 2258535 14-Jun-2019 22:14

gzt: This is a ridiculous discussion. Even if H2O water vapor was a problem it would be trivial to condense and collect it in the vehicle for later use.

I disagree that the discussion is ridiculous! Water vapour is often described as the most abundant and powerful gas in the planet's atmosphere. It is a greenhouse gas and there has been debate among scientists for many years regarding the extent to which it exerts warming when emitted into the atmosphere.

It is certainly not a "black and white" topic where there is only one correct answer, and if millions of hydrogen powered vehicles were to be added to the planet, the likely global warming effects of their emissions and manufacture etc would be well worthy of researching, if this has not been done already.

gzt

11026 posts

Uber Geek

# 2258540 14-Jun-2019 22:29

frednz:
gzt: This is a ridiculous discussion. Even if H2O water vapor was a problem it would be trivial to condense and collect it in the vehicle for later use.

I disagree that the discussion is ridiculous! Water vapour is often described as the most abundant and powerful gas in the planet's atmosphere. It is a greenhouse gas and there has been debate among scientists for many years regarding the extent to which it exerts warming when emitted into the atmosphere.

It is certainly not a "black and white" topic where there is only one correct answer, and if millions of hydrogen powered vehicles were to be added to the planet, the likely global warming effects of their emissions and manufacture etc would be well worthy of researching, if this has not been done already.

Yes it's important to do that for any technology replacing FFV's.

kingdragonfly

3554 posts

Uber Geek

# 2258631 15-Jun-2019 10:28

https://abcnews.go.com/GMA/Culture/real-life-iron-man-robert-downey-jr-launches/story?id=63499797

Real life Iron Man: Robert Downey Jr. launches climate change coalition to clean up the world with technology

ABC news

By Michael Rothman

"Talk about life imitating art.

If you're a Marvel and Iron Man fan, you know that Robert Downey Jr.'s character Tony Stark is a genius who's hell-bent on using technology to save the world.

Well, Downey took the stage Tuesday at Amazon’s re:MARS artificial intelligence conference to announce his real-life plan to do just that.

Downey posted some short clips and pics from the Las Vegas event on Instagram, writing, "What a #night @amazon #amazon #remars #thankyou #articlegroup #footprintcoalition #2020 #lasvegas."
...
Downey's new venture, called the Footprint Coalition, will launch in April 2020.

"Between robotics and nanotechnology, we could clean up the planet significantly, if not totally, in 10 years," Downey said, according to the many new outlets in attendance, including Forbes and Variety.
..."

launch in April 2020.

https://footprintcoalition.com/

Aredwood

3885 posts

Uber Geek

Subscriber

# 2258686 15-Jun-2019 11:23

One person supports this post

tdgeek:
Aredwood: I hope that you guys are remembering that fossil fuel vehicles also emit lots of water vapor. In fact, burning any fossil fuels emits water vapor. So I dont think that water vapor from H2 vehicles could be any worse than fossil fuel vehicles. Notice how there is a cloud of what looks like steam coming out of the exhaust on petrol cars on cold mornings. Especially if the car was only recently started? That cloud literally is stream/ water vapor.

I get the feeling that discussing an alternative to EV is a bad thing. So much for a discussion

Lets assume it was an issue for the sake of argument. All that needs to happen is that the water vapour is cooled so that's its expelled as a liquid. Any so called water vapour is not new water vapour, water isnt added or lost to the Earth. It just moves around

Although maybe there are simply no worthwhile advantages of H2 vehicles compared to EVs.

Should we have a discussion on whether xDSL or HFC are better for providing Internet access compared to UFB? There would be some responses that the older technologies are OK. But only because they are already installed and working. Same as how FF cars are OK for lots of people still. But you would never install xDSL or HFC as a Greenfields build. Same as this discussion would be alot different. If we were still using horse drawn carriages. And were discussing whether to go with FF cars, H2 cars, or EVs. (imagine that the National power grid didnt exist, and going with EVs would mean having to now build it). And that no FF infrastructure existed either.

But since rolling out H2 cars and refueling infrastructure will cost big money. It is important to consider whether it is the best long term solution, and that the spend will provide enough benefits.

We dont want to end up with the equivalent of the Aussie NBN.

Rikkitic

Lock him up!
11177 posts

Uber Geek

Lifetime subscriber

# 2258688 15-Jun-2019 11:34

A lot of petrol stations, especially overseas, also have LPG pumps. If hydrogen could be transported and delivered using LPG infrastructure (with or without some modification), it wouldn't be such a huge leap.

I don't think there is ever a bad time to talk about how absurd war is, how old men make decisions and young people die. - George Clooney

Aredwood

3885 posts

Uber Geek

Subscriber

# 2258693 15-Jun-2019 11:46

Rikkitic:
A lot of petrol stations, especially overseas, also have LPG pumps. If hydrogen could be transported and delivered using LPG infrastructure (with or without some modification), it wouldn't be such a huge leap.

LPG infrastructure is completely unsuitable for H2. As the pressures required to make H2 form a liquid are way way higher than with LPG. And lookup Hydrogen embrittlement.

tdgeek

18738 posts

Uber Geek

Trusted

# 2258710 15-Jun-2019 12:34

Aredwood:
tdgeek:

Aredwood: I hope that you guys are remembering that fossil fuel vehicles also emit lots of water vapor. In fact, burning any fossil fuels emits water vapor. So I dont think that water vapor from H2 vehicles could be any worse than fossil fuel vehicles. Notice how there is a cloud of what looks like steam coming out of the exhaust on petrol cars on cold mornings. Especially if the car was only recently started? That cloud literally is stream/ water vapor.

I get the feeling that discussing an alternative to EV is a bad thing. So much for a discussion

Lets assume it was an issue for the sake of argument. All that needs to happen is that the water vapour is cooled so that's its expelled as a liquid. Any so called water vapour is not new water vapour, water isnt added or lost to the Earth. It just moves around

Although maybe there are simply no worthwhile advantages of H2 vehicles compared to EVs.

Should we have a discussion on whether xDSL or HFC are better for providing Internet access compared to UFB? There would be some responses that the older technologies are OK. But only because they are already installed and working. Same as how FF cars are OK for lots of people still. But you would never install xDSL or HFC as a Greenfields build. Same as this discussion would be alot different. If we were still using horse drawn carriages. And were discussing whether to go with FF cars, H2 cars, or EVs. (imagine that the National power grid didnt exist, and going with EVs would mean having to now build it). And that no FF infrastructure existed either.

But since rolling out H2 cars and refueling infrastructure will cost big money. It is important to consider whether it is the best long term solution, and that the spend will provide enough benefits.

We dont want to end up with the equivalent of the Aussie NBN.

Th problem is, EV is a long term solution. Very long term. EV has been here for a decade or more with cars we can all buy at a dealer. Here and most countries it has no market share. When will we be using 80% EV's? Many decades away, way too late. Maybe we need to go back to LPG conversions so we can make a difference now. Its a lot cleaner, its I assume a bit cheaper, and its just a few k to convert.The viability of buying an LPG conversion for fuel savings wont matter as apparently, most people get an EV for climate change, not for fuel cost savings, so we should get on board with LPG conversions now, whatever the cost benefit is, as that's nit important.

1 | ... | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | 7 | 8 | 9 | 10 | 11 | 12 | 13 | 14 | 15 | 16 | 17 | 18 | 19 | 20 | 21 | 22 | 23 | ... | 49